Terrorism and Free speech

[welsh]

There has been a lot of talk that the war against terrorism should be reworked as a war against extremism.

But is extremism really such a bad thing? Is it perhaps worse to do away with extremism (and thus leave the rest of us safe and mundane)? Is it even possible?

The Brits seem to be caught in this issue - how far they can go to combat terrorism and those who inspire terrorism.

This is a tricky issue for most democracies. In the US the rules on political free speech have been central first amendment cases fought through the 20th century- how far does one have to go to inspire acts of violence before that speech becomes criminal? What can you do about that?

Opinion piece below-

Terrorism - Dealing with traitors

Aug 11th 2005
From The Economist print edition

The British government's anti-terrorism proposals are wrong, both in principle and in practice

“LET no one be in any doubt: the rules of the game are changing.” Even by Tony Blair's demotic standards, it was a stark response to last month's bombings in London. Outlining on August 5th what he described as a “heavy agenda” of 12 reforms to Britain's immigration and criminal justice systems, Mr Blair opened a new front in the war on terror. Battle will now be joined not just with terrorist plotters, but also with the extremists who inspire them If the prime minister gets his way, any foreigner who indulges in extremism, even if he does no more than run an unsavoury bookshop or website, will be deported. Naturalised Britons will be stripped of their citizenship before being treated in the same way. Troublesome outfits will be proscribed and their meeting places shut.

But what crime is that if they haven't done anything wrong? Is it criminal to think wicked thoughts?

Quite right too, said the Conservative opposition and many of Britain's newspapers. They want to see the back of men like Omar Bakri Mohammed, the former leader of the now dissolved Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, who has insisted that Muslims cannot be blamed for the London bombings or the attacks on America. Nods of approval also came from France, which already takes a tough line on the deportation of inflammatory preachers and plans to speed up the exodus in the next few months (see article). The French disapprove of what they regard as an absurdly sensitive attitude to free speech in Britain—and resent it, too, since at least one man who they believe was involved in bombings in Paris a decade ago took refuge in “Londonistan”.

But don't the French have an issue with the importance of their culture as a unifying element of their nationhood?

Need that be true in all countries?

Britain's anti-terror laws are among the toughest in the world—not surprisingly, given the long struggle against the Irish Republican Army. But the legal system is not so tough on inflammatory speech, unless it happens to be directed at a racial group. Although bringing firebrands to book is possible under incitement and conspiracy laws, it means proving a direct link with criminal acts, which is tricky. Evicting foreign preachers is also difficult. That is not so much, as is often claimed, because the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into British law, but because of the country's adversarial legal system, together with a long history of sheltering troublemakers who do not propose to carry out their plans on British soil. “Londonistan” existed long before the Human Rights Act.

But there can be a law against harboring criminals as well, couldn't there? But this is also where sovereignty and the power of criminal law comes to play.

Trust us
There are two good arguments for lowering the threshold for prosecution and deportation. The first and most obvious is that extremism is the pool in which terrorists swim: it inspires, supports and justifies them. Those who watch would-be terrorists say that radicalisation often begins with a chat with a charismatic agitator, although the sort of loudmouths who give interviews to newspapers are much less dangerous than the covert kind. Curtail offensive speech and the number of potential bombers might fall. The second reason is that extremism creates fear and resentment. Because they are liable to cause a backlash, fiery Islamist clerics pose more danger to western Muslims than to anybody else.

But isn't the price of free speech the danger that someone will say something you don't like?

These arguments are seductive at a fearful time, yet they must be resisted. The prime minister's proposals would serve the terrorists' ends by undermining the civilisation they attack. Free speech is not a privilege, to be revoked if it is misused, but a pillar of democracy. Threatening naturalised citizens with deportation if they flirt with extremism, as the government intends, will create two classes of citizen: the British-born and the rest. That will do incalculable harm to race relations and undermine the inclusive British identity that Labour has tried to nurture.

The government's proposals may also achieve the opposite of what is intended by further alienating Britain's Muslims from their fellow countrymen. Many say that, since the attacks on London, they feel under suspicion. Now they fear that they will be punished for the sort of violent speech that might be overlooked if it was, say, uttered by a drunken football fan. For an indication of how far trust has already broken down, compare the reaction to the bombings of July 7th and that to the announcement of August 5th. A month ago, mainstream Muslim leaders stood alongside politicians and promised to co-operate in the struggle against home-grown terror. But since Mr Blair revealed his latest proposals, they have dug in their heels even against the banning of extremist organisations that they formerly attacked.

The government says it will use the new powers it plans to acquire with restraint. Trust us, it implies: only nasty Muslims will be targeted. Everybody else can relax. But even if a government could be trusted to keep such a promise, which none can be, it should not be accepted. Laws are not created in order that undesirables may be put away. That is a side effect. Their real purpose is to set down clear guidelines about what is acceptable and what is not.

Note this argument- THe government says, "trust us to do what's right." The response - Even if a government could be trusted to keep such a promise, which none can be, it should not be accepted."

This is something Americans should have been thinking about the current administration and it's war on terrorism and it's war in Iraq.

Mr Blair is right that things are changing. People are scared, and are therefore more inclined to trust government than they normally would. That's dangerous. The sooner Britons' healthy wariness of government returns, the better.

Because when you distrust your government, you watch it more closely and you, as a society, have more reason to control it.

And Mr. Blair's plan-
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page8041.asp

 

[Mikey]

I personally agree with the general idea of the new plans - get rid of the people who make the terrorists - nip them in the bud. I mean, there comes a point where free speech stops being free speech and becomes inciting radicals to blow up civillians.

Then again, maybe I've been brainwashed by a government because we're in a scary time.

 

[welsh]

Mikey- it's easier to be support of a government during scary times when the government says that it's better to deny some civil liberties for security.

But the question that bugs me is, "But by caving in on civil liberties, haven't you basically forfeited your democracy to terrorism?"

Terrorists aim at disrupting your way of life and your values, by forcing you to act based on your fears. Isn't this a win for them?

And I agree that inciting someone to do a crime should, in itself, be a crime, just as conspiracy to commit a crime is its own crime. But the question then becomes- at what point does that crime become foreseeable.

For example if a black radical in the US were to say to a crowd "We should repress the white folks and kill the white man that seeks to keep as repressed", is he then responsible for when a white person is killed by a black radical who was urged to commit the act.

Ditto, if a British marxist says "We should destroy the pillars of capitalism" and a radical blows up a bank in London- is the Marxist responsible for the crime?

There has to be some element of foreseeability.

Add that to a more pressing issue- can you convict a person for a crime that has yet to be committed?

 

[welsh]

Mikey, I hope you are not seeing this Brit approach as unique=

For the US take on the "War against violent extremism"

Washington recasts terror war as 'struggle'
By Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005

WASHINGTON The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, according to senior administration and military officials.

So down with communism, and now its extremism that we're fighting?

See- Cold War
See- Red Menace
See- Red Scare
See- Homophobia wins '04 election.

I wonder of homosexuality would be violent extremism?

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.

Because terror is an acceptable tactic when you torture people?

I think its the adjective "violent" that gets most of the play, but its the noun I find troubling.

So which is a better "catchphrase"?
Global war on terrorism = 4 words, six or seven syllables (depending if you say terrorism fast)
Global struggle against Violent extremism" - 5 words, or 9 syllables.

I think the second is kind of a mouthful.

Administration officials say the earlier phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

= bad advertising means time for new slogan.

New policy? Wait, that might be tricky.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

So this is a case of marketing or advertising?

He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Does this mean that those who bomb abortion clinics can be tortured?

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

= ok so force has its limits, apparently. Maybe we need to rethink this thing.

Oh and did our earlier plan create more terrorists than before. Well at least that's good for the military-industrial complex, because, let's face it, they need the cash.

Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President George W. Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

It only took him four years to figure out that pure military solutions are not the answer?

Rumsfeld spoke in the new terms on Friday when he addressed an audience in Annapolis, Maryland, for the retirement ceremony of Admiral Vern Clark as chief of naval operations. Rumsfeld described America's efforts as it "wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization."

The shifting language is one of the most public changes in the administration's strategy to battle Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and it tracks closely with Bush's recent speeches emphasizing freedom, democracy and the worldwide clash of ideas.

Ironic that Bush is playing the tune of the Clash of Civilizations.
For those interested in Huntington's contraversial work- Clash of Civilizations

It's popular in some of the developing world, but usually scorned among US academic circles for being overly simplistic.

"It is more than just a military war on terror," Steven Hadley, the national security adviser, said in a telephone interview. "It's broader than that. It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."

Hmmmm...

or

Those christian messages can be so conflicted.

The language shift also comes at a time when Bush, with a new appointment for one of his most trusted aides, Karen Hughes, is trying to bolster the State Department's efforts at public diplomacy.

Lawrence Di Rita, Rumsfeld's spokesman, said the change in language "is not a shift in thinking, but a continuation of the immediate post-9/11 approach."

"The president then said we were going to use all the means of national power and influence to defeat this enemy," Di Rita said. "We must continue to be more expansive than what the public is understandably focused on now: the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq."

By stressing to the public that the effort is not only military, the administration may also be trying to reassure those in uniform who have begun complaining that only members of the armed forces are being asked to sacrifice for the effort.

And so the Foreign Service begins to lose recruits as well?

New opinion polls show that the American public is increasingly pessimistic about the mission in Iraq, with many doubting its link to the counterterrorism mission. Thus, a new emphasis on reminding the public of the broader, long-term threat to the United States may allow the administration to put into broader perspective the daily mayhem in Iraq and the American casualties.

Pessimistic? The President's approval polls are about as low as LBJ's in '68 when he decided he wouldn't run for reelection. Oh wait, Vietnam analogy again.

But you got to hand it to W, when he's down he goes with what works - "scare the shit of out constituents."

Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said in an interview that if America's efforts were limited to "protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you're on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time." The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."

The problem with treadmills is that, if you're not to careful, they can get ahead of you... and run you over.